§
Ex Parte O

15 Cited authorities

  1. Phillips v. AWH Corp.

    415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 5,889 times   170 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "because extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean, it is permissible for the district court in its sound discretion to admit and use such evidence"

  2. Comark Communications v. Harris Corp.

    156 F.3d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,196 times
    Holding the "doctrine of claim differentiation create a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope"

  3. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.

    288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 975 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must “clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term” other than its plain and ordinary meaning

  4. Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp.

    401 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 289 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a particular term, even the same term, "need not have the same meaning when used in an entirely separate patent, particularly one involving different technology"

  5. Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.

    403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 254 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding a chemical patent inherently anticipated and stating that it was irrelevant whether the inherently disclosed chemical was ever actually produced

  6. Lindemann Maschinenfabrik v. Am. Hoist

    730 F.2d 1452 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 200 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that claims are not to be treated as "mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their meaning"

  7. In re Am. Academy of Science Tech Ctr.

    367 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 90 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that descriptions of deficiencies of using mainframe computers set out in the "Background of the Invention" portion of the specification did not exclude mainframes from the definition of "'user computer'" where the "specification as a whole" did not express a clear disavowal of that subject matter

  8. In re Yamamoto

    740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 111 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation “serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified”

  9. In re Hyatt

    211 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 36 times
    Rejecting Hyatt's claim that the Board failed to analyze the claims on an element-by-element and claim-by-claim basis and affirming the Board's anticipation determination

  10. In re King

    801 F.2d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1986)   Cited 46 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that principles of inherency do not prohibit a process patent for a new use of an old structure

  11. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  12. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 6,033 times   1028 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  13. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)